Question for Scenario Designers

[Scud]

Our webmaster, Raz, had a question for the ladder mods. Since I don't design scenarios I found it difficult to answer so I'm posting for you guys. Here's what he said:

1) Go to Scenarios->Add Scenario Info to DB and try to add a Campaign Series scenario,for example. On the page listing the scenario fields everything until 'Scenario Briefing' are 'stock' fields -shared by all ladders, everything below it are custom fields specific to that ladder.

For CS there are no less than 18 custom fields, from Scenario date to Axis Supply. As a result, when adding scenarios to the database people usually don't fill it.

My question is if these custom fields are truly needed? I was thinking for blitz3 to remove it and make the process of adding scenarios as straightforward as possible. And thoughts about this?

2) When reporting a game/voting for a scenario, the user is required to rate it using three values: How is the PBEM balancing?/How entertaining/challenging is the scenario/How well written are the brifiengs?

At least for CMBN the briefings rating isn't exactly needed, so i'm considering to drop it. Is this ok with you?

Thanks,
Dave

[Big Ivan]

Raz and Dave,

I've added a few scenarios to the data base and I am middle of the road on your question.

I like the addition of the briefing part and its a matter of a simple copy and paste but the other data, well lets just say you have to write it down to populate those fields as there is no simple copy and paste, time consuming.

As for the scenario data itself, I usually use the briefing and SM when I am brousing for a download. The other data no.

However, I do like the performance data shown in who played and who won/lost so I would't support doing away with any of that. One addition that would be helpful though for each scenario is a table somewhere in the body of the scenario data that would show number of major wins, minor wins, draws, minor losses and major losses for the starting side. This would be helpful in trying to make a decision to play a scenario or not in PBEM especially when it has been played hundreds of times.

Ivan the Big

[raz_atoth]

John,
The scenario briefing will stay, there are no plans to remove it. What we are considering to remove - to make the process of adding scenarios as smooth as possible - are the fields beneath it. In the case of CS the fields starting with Scenario date and ending with Axis Supply. The exception to the above is Scenario type [stock/custom], which most likely will stay.

What we also might remove is the 'How well written are the briefings?' question when reporting games/rating scenarios. As i see it, 'How is the PBEM balancing? and 'How entertaining/challenging is the scenario?' are just enough to rate a scenario.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I always wondered why supply, smoke, number of planes, etc were included in the scenario list of info.
Once the scenario is uploaded to the dBASE everyone could read what the set up was for it?
CS uploads have always been tedious at best.

The most important piece of info for the dBASE was the size of the scenario (as needed by the club) for balancing time against other game play.

Yes, rating the briefing was always a puzzle to me. It does not effect game play at all.

HSL

[Crossroads]

Mm I thought I already posted here in the morning, what happened?

To make it short: I don't mind the amount of information really, once you've created a scenarioyou tend to remember it all anyway.

I also often go to scenario db as a place to get detailed info on a scenario rather than trying to find about it from the rather ancient game menu screens...

[Kool Kat]

Gents:

I've designed and upload a few scenarios myself.

I vote to remove all categories "below" the "Modified Complexity" - "Optional Rules" line.

So... eliminate Ground Conditions, Visibility, Victory Levels, Air Power, Smoke, and Supply categories.

That should free up some space and make scenario entry easier.

______________________________________

In regards to reporting / voting for a scenario... IMO just the "How is the PBeM balancing?" and "How entertaining / challenging is the scenario categories should be retained.

I don't evaluate a scenario based on "How well written is the briefing?" - especially with some designers do not have English as their primary language. Besides, as stated by others, briefings don't impact the play of a scenario.

[Crossroads]

John,
The scenario briefing will stay, there are no plans to remove it. What we are considering to remove - to make the process of adding scenarios as smooth as possible - are the fields beneath it. In the case of CS the fields starting with Scenario date and ending with Axis Supply. The exception to the above is Scenario type [stock/custom], which most likely will stay.

What we also might remove is the 'How well written are the briefings?' question when reporting games/rating scenarios. As i see it, 'How is the PBEM balancing? and 'How entertaining/challenging is the scenario?' are just enough to rate a scenario.

Let us put it this way: is the current set up causing extra work for the site management? Or is this something you came up with purely to make life easier for scenario designers?

The one value that needs extra care is the Scenario Size Modifier. After that, it is just adding your basic scenario setup there?

I have them always available anyway, as I start to put up the information together already when a scenario is in its early design phase. For an example: my latest Winter War scenario, currently in H2H testing.

=> SM=6, frozen ground, lowish visibility, lowish supply levels, significant points required for victory levels. You should already get a pretty good picture how the scenario will feel based on that info right?

I don't know, maybe it is just me but I carefully consider say ground conditions and visibility also from game balancing and enjoyment point of view. Having low visibility can be fun as there's an extra element of stealth in the game then. Use of artillery is a tad more difficult, spotters required near the target hexes.

And as I use them when putting a scenario together, I consider them when selecting one to play as well. I mean if there is a site management issue behind this, and it would make it easier for you guys, then I am not against it that much. But if it is only to make it easier for designers, I just don't see the need for it. It really is no issue to provide those few values as well. It is not like there are dozens of scenarios being entered there constantly is it.

Removing the data makes the Scenario Database of lesser value when data on what makes scenarios different from each other would no longer be there.

As for scenario description score, it is a bit unnecessary. I personally try to put the extra effort to scenario descriptions regardless.

[Crossroads]

Also, I would actually like to see more scenario meta data being available within the Search Scenarios functionality.

Scenarios with low visibility? Scenarios with low supply for Axis / Allied? Et cetera.

I do understand however that as the Scenario DB houses several game formats the lowest common denominator prevails.